These tools will no longer be maintained as of December 31, 2024. Archived website can be found here. PubMed4Hh GitHub repository can be found here. Contact NLM Customer Service if you have questions.


BIOMARKERS

Molecular Biopsy of Human Tumors

- a resource for Precision Medicine *

201 related articles for article (PubMed ID: 22665742)

  • 1. Relating the marginal fit of the castings to the accuracy of the impressions made from laminated hydrocolloid impression technique: a comparative study.
    Sinha MR; Thakur B; Gaikwad A; Chaudhari LD; Kulkarni A; Kulkarni H
    J Contemp Dent Pract; 2012 Mar; 13(2):167-72. PubMed ID: 22665742
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 2. Ability of various impression materials to produce duplicate dies from successive impressions.
    Morgano SM; Milot P; Ducharme P; Rose L
    J Prosthet Dent; 1995 Apr; 73(4):333-40. PubMed ID: 7783010
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 3. 3D and 2D marginal fit of pressed and CAD/CAM lithium disilicate crowns made from digital and conventional impressions.
    Anadioti E; Aquilino SA; Gratton DG; Holloway JA; Denry I; Thomas GW; Qian F
    J Prosthodont; 2014 Dec; 23(8):610-7. PubMed ID: 24995593
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 4. Margin adaptation of indirect composite inlays fabricated on flexible dies.
    Price RB; Gerrow JD
    J Prosthet Dent; 2000 Mar; 83(3):306-13. PubMed ID: 10709039
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 5. Comparison of Dimensional Accuracy of Stone Models Fabricated by Three Different Impression Techniques Using Two Brands of Polyvinyl Siloxane Impression Materials.
    Garg S; Kumar S; Jain S; Aggarwal R; Choudhary S; Reddy NK
    J Contemp Dent Pract; 2019 Aug; 20(8):928-934. PubMed ID: 31797849
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 6. A comparison of impression materials for complete-arch fixed partial dentures.
    Dounis GS; Ziebert GJ; Dounis KS
    J Prosthet Dent; 1991 Feb; 65(2):165-9. PubMed ID: 2051350
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 7. Comparative Analysis of Marginal Accuracy of Complete Crowns Fabricated by Using Ringless and Metal Ring Investment Systems: An
    Saini N; Kumar S; Aggarwal R; Choudhary S; Tyagi R; Malethia A
    J Contemp Dent Pract; 2020 Aug; 21(8):852-856. PubMed ID: 33568604
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 8. Accuracy of impression materials for complete-arch fixed partial dentures.
    Lin CC; Ziebert GJ; Donegan SJ; Dhuru VB
    J Prosthet Dent; 1988 Mar; 59(3):288-91. PubMed ID: 3279184
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 9. Marginal gap of crowns made with a phosphate-bonded investment and accelerated casting method.
    Schilling ER; Miller BH; Woody RD; Miller AW; Nunn ME
    J Prosthet Dent; 1999 Feb; 81(2):129-34. PubMed ID: 9922424
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 10. A comparison of the accuracy of polyether, polyvinyl siloxane, and plaster impressions for long-span implant-supported prostheses.
    Hoods-Moonsammy VJ; Owen P; Howes DG
    Int J Prosthodont; 2014; 27(5):433-8. PubMed ID: 25191885
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 11. Influence of polyurethane resin dies on the fit and adaptation of full veneer crowns.
    Lillywhite GR; Vohra F
    Indian J Dent Res; 2015; 26(1):72-6. PubMed ID: 25961620
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 12. Effect of various putty-wash impression techniques on marginal fit of cast crowns.
    Nissan J; Rosner O; Bukhari MA; Ghelfan O; Pilo R
    Int J Periodontics Restorative Dent; 2013; 33(1):e37-42. PubMed ID: 23342356
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 13. Irreversible hydrocolloids for crown and bridge impressions: effect of different treatments on compatibility of irreversible hydrocolloid impression material with type IV gypsums.
    Eriksson A; Ockert-Eriksson G; Lockowandt P; Lindén LA
    Dent Mater; 1996 Mar; 12(2):74-82. PubMed ID: 9002847
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 14. Evaluating the marginal fit of zirconia copings with digital impressions with an intraoral digital scanner.
    An S; Kim S; Choi H; Lee JH; Moon HS
    J Prosthet Dent; 2014 Nov; 112(5):1171-5. PubMed ID: 24951386
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 15. Evaluation of different methods of optical impression making on the marginal gap of onlays created with CEREC 3D.
    da Costa JB; Pelogia F; Hagedorn B; Ferracane JL
    Oper Dent; 2010; 35(3):324-9. PubMed ID: 20533633
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 16. Clinical marginal fit of zirconia crowns and patients' preferences for impression techniques using intraoral digital scanner versus polyvinyl siloxane material.
    Sakornwimon N; Leevailoj C
    J Prosthet Dent; 2017 Sep; 118(3):386-391. PubMed ID: 28222872
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 17. Evaluating the Effect of Different Impression Techniques and Splinting Methods on the Dimensional Accuracy of Multiple Implant Impressions: An in vitro Study.
    Saini HS; Jain S; Kumar S; Aggarwal R; Choudhary S; Reddy NK
    J Contemp Dent Pract; 2018 Aug; 19(8):1005-1012. PubMed ID: 30150505
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 18. The influence of tray space and repeat pours on the accuracy of monophasic polyvinylsiloxane impression.
    Rajapur A; Dixit S; Hoshing C; Raikar SP
    J Contemp Dent Pract; 2012 Nov; 13(6):824-9. PubMed ID: 23404010
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 19. Accuracy of three polyvinyl siloxane putty-wash impression techniques.
    Nissan J; Laufer BZ; Brosh T; Assif D
    J Prosthet Dent; 2000 Feb; 83(2):161-5. PubMed ID: 10668027
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 20. Effect of tray space on the accuracy of monophasic polyvinylsiloxane impressions.
    Tjan AH; Nemetz H; Nguyen LT; Contino R
    J Prosthet Dent; 1992 Jul; 68(1):19-28. PubMed ID: 1403906
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

    [Next]    [New Search]
    of 11.